Non-resident license fees.

[JAYgs8163]

In as much as state wildlife agencies have received billions of federal dollars in funding over the years, how is it that they can justify charging non-residents (US citizens) exorbitantly greater fees than state residents? Just curious.

We'll in my state if they didn't we'd be over run with OOS hunters. Remember, the citizens of the state paying taxes come first, as they should. If you'd like to hunt in our state then you pay the fee. Some states as mine have very limited opportunities for big game hunting and most of the times it takes MANY years to draw a tag.

 

[Tom Wright]

I put the question to an old friend, and retired wildlife professor. He agrees it's probably intended to limit the numbers of hunters entering the state, that it favors wealthy over poor hunters, and, similarly to you, because they can get away with it. I don't know, but I suspect if we really looked into the numbers, we'd probably discover that more dollars are derived from out of state sources than from residents.

I'm afraid it's like everything else. They don't want to upset local voters by raising license fees for residents, so they limit numbers of non resident hunters and charge them a premium for the one-time event generated through the draw. It's kind of like big horn sheep licenses—some go for as much as $250K. So that cuts out almost everyone, but generates a large chunk of $$$, without the time and effort of a lottery and charging $100 or so for each entrant. They also have to keep local hunters happy so they limit numbers of non-resident hunters and they must at the same time work with licensed guides to have enough permits available to keep them in business. It's like doing calculus backwards, you know the result you want, and you work the issues/parameters to make that happen. But just imagine being a kid in AZ and never being able to hunt elk in your state because old guys from out of state with fat wallets always get the tags!

 

[WYO300RUM]

paying higher cost for nonresident license is not a problem when you look at all the work a lot of us guys (residents) do in the off season. Building trick tanks, hauling water during this drought. 11 years for my first elk tag, 7 years and now 8 years. 24 bonus points on antelope, 21 points desert big horn and 17 for mule deer! We're a 90/10 state doesn't seem to be a problem here?
so why is it fair for you to pay the same as residents? Sorry for the rant!

You must live in Az.

 

[Orange Dust]

Wonder how Pittman Roberts money is divided among states,I have no clue.We all pay it every time we buy something to hunt or fish with.I do not think it is wrong to pay more,just think cost could be a little closer.I bought two out of state hunting licences this year to coyote hunt,just paid them and went hunting.This a subject that will never be agreed on,good and bad according where you live

You mean the "New Deal" act the Feds use funding to blackmail the States with? Fits in with everything else FDR did. Read up on it.

 

[Crusty Buck]

I'm afraid it's like everything else. They don't want to upset local voters by raising license fees for residents, so they limit numbers of non resident hunters and charge them a premium for the one-time event generated through the draw. It's kind of like big horn sheep licenses—some go for as much as $250K. So that cuts out almost everyone, but generates a large chunk of $$$, without the time and effort of a lottery and charging $100 or so for each entrant. They also have to keep local hunters happy so they limit numbers of non-resident hunters and they must at the same time work with licensed guides to have enough permits available to keep them in business. It's like doing calculus backwards, you know the result you want, and you work the issues/parameters to make that happen. But just imagine being a kid in AZ and never being able to hunt elk in your state because old guys from out of state with fat wallets always get the tags!

That would be a travisty for kids.

 

[Eric H]

Can anyone name a state that does not charge more for non-resident hunting and fishing?

 

[Puddle]

I just finished an interesting exercise pricing out various hunts out West & Canada and compared them to hunt offers in Africa.

Turned out that even when including the round trip airfare it was still cheaper by more than $1,000 to spend a week in Africa then hunting here.

Guess where I'm headed this year? ...

 

[Pizzaman1]

In as much as state wildlife agencies have received billions of federal dollars in funding over the years, how is it that they can justify charging non-residents (US citizens) exorbitantly greater fees than state residents? Just curious.

It's simple, the states along with the residents don't want out of state folks hunting there.

 

[BCMAG2]

Historically, hunting and fishing was something the average guy did in his own immediate area. If you had "meat" deer and small bass in your county, that's what you were satisfied with. Destination hunting was something that the wealthy and upper middle class did, and always understood that it would be expensive. Now everyone feels entitled to hunt every kind of trophy and exotic in far away states without having to pay a premium for it. If New Yorkers want to hunt what Montana has to offer at resident rates, they can move to Montana and become a resident. Of course, they will also be taking a 70% income cut…so quit the whining about tag fees. If its not worth it to you, then just don't do it. Find something fun to do in your own home state.

 

[huntercole]

You don't want all the federal land to be state owned. States can't afford to maintain it, fight fires, maintain roads, etc and then need money for something else and will just sell the land. Then no one has access. States have already sold millions of acres of once public land.

I think you're pretty much stuck with non residents having higher prices. There can only be a set number of tags. You lower the nonresident prices significantly and a bunch more people are going to apply and then you'll have even less chance of getting a tag. What good is saving a couple hundred dollars if you can never draw the tag? I don't think there's anyway you'll get residents to average out the tag cost with nonresident prices and pay a few hundred dollars more and you can pretty much guarantee that they won't give up their tags to go to the nonresident tag quota.

Yeah, I wish nonresident tags weren't so expensive, but I see it as a cheap vacation. With tag and fuel I can go hunt for 10 days for around $100 a day. Spending time with friends and family, out doing what I love, exploring new country, and not at work. Can't beat it.

 

[Baylor243]

Residents pay taxes and fees of several types to their state all years long, and the states see fit to give them a cost break on hunting license fees. Non-residents pay an increased fee, like it or not.

I agree that the cost difference between the two can be drastic. I also think it's kind of a racket to have to buy a non-refundable hunting permit in some states before applying for draw tags.

Hikers and campers are often permitted to use the land in a similar manner for considerably less or even no fees. If the system were equitable, they too would have to buy a license or permit when enjoying state trust lands.

I'm the end, we all want to go do what we love doing and we have to pay the advertised price.

 

[WYO300RUM]

You are not paying to hunt federal land as a NR, you are paying to hunt state-owned and managed wildlife. Big difference.
Many NRs hunt private via outfitters, family, and friends. NR tags are not exclusive to federal lands. Much of Wyoming's public lands are state owned.
NRs are offered non-hunting recreational use of federal lands at the same opportunity level and costs as residents.

One thing I've never agreed with or seen as legal is Wy. G&F/State requiring a non resident to have a guide in wilderness areas. It's National Forest its Federal land. Public land. Not state land. A resident can get killed by a grizzly as easy as a non resident as we saw a few days ago and happens every year. I won't get into the grizzly and wolf issue. The Outfitter's Association has a big pull in this state and millions of dollars in non resident tags goes to the G&F. It's been fought in court a couples times on the non res/wilderness gig. The non res lost. Now that I've been living here it doesn't bother me at all. But as a non res. It did.

 

[bigred1]

In order to understand the rights of a state to regulate wildlife that exist within it's borders read the SCOTUS decision in Greer vs Connecticut and Baldwin vs Montana Fish and Game Commision.
For those of you that would link wildlife with land ownership just imagine what a land owner would charge for his wildlife. I believe that non resident fees would be cheap in comparison.

 

[Chas1]

When out of state folks are willing to pay $1,200 it's no wonder they charge so much. We do it to ourselves + they probably want to limit the number of out of state hunters.